Originally Posted by Richard J

Gee, I dunno, maybe it has something to price collusion. Ever notice how the price of gasoline is usually close to the same price, depending on location?

One part of town all the prices are close to the same, while on another part of town, the prices are different, but all the gas stations have close to the same prices that are close to each other.

How about those record profits from two years ago?

Jan. 30, 2006

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.

Exxon’s profit for the year was also the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for Standard & Poor’s. He said the previous high was Exxon’s $25.3 billion profit in 2004.

ConocoPhillips said last Wednesday that its fourth-quarter earnings rose 51 percent to $3.68 billion, while annual income climbed 66 percent to $13.53 billion. Two days later, Chevron Corp. said its fourth-quarter earnings rose 20 percent to $4.14 billion, while annual income jumped 6 percent to $14.1 billion.

Exxon Mobil posts record 4Q profit of $10.7 billion - Earnings - MSNBC.com

Oxy reports record profit on oil prices

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 30, 2008
Record oil prices pushed Occidental Petroleum Corp. to record profit for the fourth quarter and all of 2007, the Westwood company said Tuesday.

Occidental earned $1.5 billion, or $1.74 a share, during the fourth quarter of 2007, up from $930 million, or $1.09, during the same three months in 2006. That was well above the $1.69 that had been predicted by analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Sign Up

NEW YORK, Jan 30 (Reuters) - Murphy Oil Corp (MUR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday its fourth-quarter earnings more than doubled as oil prices soared to record levels.

UPDATE 1-Murphy Oil profits more than double on record oil | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

Shell is expected to announce earnings of £13.4billion today - the biggest-ever profit by a British company.

The oil giant is likely to report that profits have risen 12 per cent since last year, pushed up amid fears of instability in the Middle East.

Shell's 'obscene' £13.4billion profit breaks British record | the Daily Mail




The oil companies' profits, thanks to US foreign and domestic policy, have risen to sickening levels. A 51% increase in one year, if that isn't rape, then what is?

All because our government licks the boots of their corporate masters?

Even with record profits, the oil companies still get tax incentives from the government, funded by your tax dollars and mine.

It's pretty sad when we are getting raped by the oil companies and some people don't even realize it.

So, how much money does the oil industry spend lobbying Congress?

The Wall Street Journal today reports that the major oil companies successfully “beat back” attempts by Congress to have oil companies pay their fair share in taxes:

Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips beat back an attempt by senators to raise their taxes by nearly $6 billion.

The Senate version of the bill at one point included a provision that would have cost the five largest oil companies — companies with average daily production of 500,000 barrels; gross receipts of more than $1 billion dollars in 2005 and an ownership in a refinery of 15% or more — about $5 billion by changing how they account for oil inventory. House Republicans dropped the provision from the final version of the bill.

A separate Senate measure would have stripped $700 million in tax incentives for large oil companies to explore for oil and gas. That provision, too, was dropped from the compromise bill that emerged from House-Senate negotiations.

Looks like Big Oil has been putting their record profits to good use.

PoliticalMoneyLine has a new analysis on how they’ve been spending their money. In 2005, the top ten oil companies spent a whopping $33,173,092 lobbying Congress and the Bush administration. The numbers are broken down by company below:

Think Progress » Big Oil’s Lobbying Efforts Pay Off

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've had this this conversation. I would finance my own energy research. You have your opinion and no one is going to talk you out of it. Thanks for the time, but I've heard all this before. Time for me to go.

RJ

Originally Posted by Richard J

RJ folds like a cheap lawn chair.

So, run and hide, because you have heard it all before.

Thanks, since I prefer you run and hide then to listen to you defend the actions of one of the most corrupt industries that has ever existed on the face of the planet. An industry who helped NAZI Germany both before and during the war.

An industry which has many politicians in their pockets and which has helped suppress new technologies for decades.

Yes, run and hide as it is preferable to me having to listen to people who defend the actions of scumbag corporations who place no value on what is best for the American people.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

The Nazi research into alternative fuel sources was borne of desperation, and never would have occurred if they had had a reliable source of crude oil great enough to meet the needs of their industry. They came up with some promising prospects, but nothing as economical or versatile as crude. As I’ve stated a number of times, I have no doubt we could replace most of our dependence on oil, but at what price? At what cost to our industry? There’s nothing to suggest that the alternatives would be as cheap as oil, putting our industry at a distinct disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

They aren't economically viable because the US government has been giving corporate welfare to the oil companies for decades. If the government would invest the same amount of money in alternative fuels that has been given to the oil companies over the last 50 years, then chances are, alternative fuels would become economically feasible.

We have allowed the oil companies to purchase legislation in this country for a long time. Now, with oil near 100 dollars a barrel, alternative energy is becoming more and more attractive.

Have you seen this story?

Anything Into Oil

Anything Into Oil | Alternative Energy | DISCOVER Magazine

I was wondering, did you ever bother to read the paper I have posted numerous times on using hemp as biomass for energy?

Hemp Biomass for Energy

No? I didn't think so.

We all know alternative energy is more expensive than oil and fossil fuels, but most NEW technologies always are. As the NEW technologies are developed, the price almost always comes down as new ideas to cut costs are looked for and usually found.

I don't know about you, but I would be willing to pay more for my gasoline and my electricity, if I knew that it would lead to the ability to tell all the countries in the Middle East exactly what they can do with their oil because we don't need it anymore.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Yup, that's me . . . a cheap lawn chair. Thanks for the enlightening conversation. Next time a little low on gas I'll get my laundry soap out. Then I'll try some hemp .

Our conversation is a microcosm of the real energy debate. It isn't about what's best for country. It's about small minded stupid people who are swept up into the bile of class envy. As I said, you would rather sit in the dark and swear at corporations than allow people to make a profit on their labor.

You can say I run and hide. Actually, I'm still here, but choose not to continue this conversation. It's going no where. I need to get on with something productive.

I wish you a very energy conservative life.

RJ

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I would agree with your position if there were a law passed that required a transition to alternative fuels, within a period of a few years.

I am not advocating that level of friction to our economy. However, to suggest that we will never have the technology to run cleaner and more efficient modes of transportation is not very credible either. Where was the economic need to put a man on the moon? Yet, that former piece of science fiction was rendered science fact, by some political impetus.

I only recommend market friendly and sustainable transitions to cleaner fuels and technologies; such as the hypothetical scenario to simply have an executive order requiring a certain number of public sector vehicles be alternative fuel capable. Something that simple would not require any massive retooling of entire industries and could be done in a relatively cost effective manner using current methods and technologies.

The point, however, would be that a there would be a market based incentive to transition away from less environmentally friendly fuels and technologies.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

No doubt the price will come down significantly, but do you really believe it’ll eve come down to a price that rivals sinking a pipe into the ground? And the problem I keep trying to point out isn’t what we as consumers would be willing to pay, it’s what impact would it have on our already struggling industry? As far as a crop for biodiesel-type fuels, I’ve already posed this question in another thread somewhere; I can see the potential problems with genetically engineering consumables, but has anyone looked into genetically engineering a crop specifically for the biodiesel market? I was thinking of something that grows rapidly over a wide range of climates and terrains and produces a lot of natural oil. Since it wouldn’t be consumed directly, we wouldn’t need to worry too much about its effect it would have on humans.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

But my position is to simply let the market forces move industry where it will, a law or an EO runs counter to my position.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

What struggling industry are you referring to? One that is making record profits? Please explain what struggling industry you are referring to.

Your suggestion about engineering a plant is a good one, but you are describing a plant that already exists. You are describing the hemp plant, something you would know if you BOTHERED TO RESEARCH HEMP. HEMP grows very rapidly, can be grown in every state in the US, from Hawaii to Alaska, it's seeds are very high in oil, its stalks are the highest producer of cellulose, it needs very little fertilizer, or pesticides and it has a short growing cycle. It also other advantages, like being able to reclaim land that has been ruined by other plants. Besides being good for energy, there are 25,000 or more products which can be made form hemp. Gee, I wonder why the USA is the ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD WITHOUT AN ESTABLISHED HEMP CROP?

JEESH.

Your description of producing gasoline leaves a lot to be desired.

Sinking a pie in the ground? Please. How simplistic can you get?

First, a geological survey is produced. Then much time and thought goes into the best place to drill and what techniques to be used. Then, after a successful well is tapped, the crude oil must be transported to a refinery. Then the crude is refined into gasoline, or some other product and then it is transported again. During the entire process much care must be given to prevent spills, since a small spill can taint millions of gallons of water.

This is sinking a pipe into the ground?


Anyways, you are obviously a pretty intelligent person.

My question is, why are you unwilling to do some simple research on hemp?

AT LEAST READ THIS ONE SINGLE ARTICLE, FROM POPULAR MECHANICS IN 1938.....

From the farmers' point of view, hemp is an easy crop to grow and will yield from three to six tons per acre on any land that will grow corn, wheat, or oats. It has a short growing season, so that it can be planted after other crops are in. It can be grown in any state of the union. The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year's crop. The dense shock of leaves, eight to twelve feet above the ground, chokes out weeds. Two successive crops are enough to reclaim land that has been abandoned because of Canadian thistles or quack grass.

Hemp: The New Billion-Dollar Crop - Popular Mechanics - 1938

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

I’m talking about industry in general terms, not any specific industry per se. My point is similar to what dockman is expressing in his post above. I don’t believe most people really consider the full impact of such a change. This isn’t like switching from Coke to Pepsi. There are substantial costs involved, costs that will have to be absorbed by our society and our manufacturing sector, which is already struggling to compete on the world market. The costs associate with the geological survey and drilling etc. are minor compared to the cost of setting up a facility to turn garbage into oil, and that’s not even mentioning the operating costs, which would be phenomenally different. In the end, once we’ve switched to whatever we decide on, OPEC nations can cut the price of crude to a fraction of its current price, and still make a handsome profit, and sell it to our trade rivals, hurting US industry even more than just absorbing the cost of switching to an alternative fuel source.

As far as hemp goes, the only problem I have with it is that it seems like it’s being used as a political ploy for the legalization of marijuana. I don’t have a problem with hemp; I think it’s silly that we don’t make more use of it than we do. I also think the War on Drugs is a complete waste of time, it was lost long before it was ever declared. The problem is; nobody in DC wants to address it, so it’s pretty much a dead issue for the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by dockman

Ah, to live in the wonderful make believe world of Liberal Land. A magical place where with but the swoosh of a pen by an omnipotent federal government official, all problems are erased. Using too mush foreign oil? Don't make use of the resources you have at home (ANWR, Shale oil, natural gas...), for we shall make it a law to use alternative fuels. And so it shall be. And no cost will be added nor hardship endured by the "working poor", for the evil rich will pay their "fair share" and it will be free to all (except the evil rich of course). No need to examine the questions that reality will throw at you, such as infrastructure, distribution, re-tooling, forcing everyone in the country to buy new "better" cars and trucks, convincing OPEC to keep their prices at a reasonable level while knowing they are being forced out of the only market they have, why not even basic economics, for the magical Executive Order solves everything. And what it doesn't solve, Hemp, the Wonder Weed, will. Why, is there nothing it can't do? How we managed to become the lone superpower in the world without hemp just defies explanation. Some day, if you wish hard enough, or allow enough socialists to become elected, or smoke enough Wonder Weed, we will live in Liberal Land. One can dream.